Milos Rancic wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Aphaia
<aphaia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
IIRC, Milos, you would love to have the proposed
Volunteer Council to
have the role of SuperHyperArbcom. Then I think I have a good reason
to oppose strongly your idea.
May you read my emails again and find where I said so? I proposed
forming of Meta ArbCom, as well as I mentioned that VC may act as a
*temporary* Meta ArbCom because we need some body to start to deal
with sediments of problems before it is too late.
There is no agreement that Wikicouncil will at any time act as a
"temporary Meta Arbcom".Doing so would compromise any value that such a
Council may have. It is conceivable that Wikicouncil could participate
in establishing such a body, but that task has a fairly low priority in
my mind. Once established, the members of such a Meta Arbcom, should
not also be members of Wikicouncil.
I and Ray
referred to the same person who was so trusted as to be
promoted to sysop (and even b'crat) but once permanently blocked from
English Wikipedia Arbcom?
If some body/group/community makes some unreasonable decision (en.wp
ArbCom is not the first, not the last; jp.wp community decision for
your block is much more problematic because it was, AFAIK,
*community's* decision, not ArbCom's decision) -- there are ways for
working on making them more reasonable. However, without Meta ArbCom
and/or VC we don't have a regular method for that.
The other option is to give global power to local ArbComs. If one
ArbCom is not reasonable, other ArbComs will notice that...
One important factor in
this is what one considers to be the role of any
Arbcom. My view of the Arbcom, based on its earliest incarnations, is
that it has some kind of appellate jurisdiction. It does not itself
initiate disciplinary action; that remains the role of a project's own
community. This has nothing to do with VC.
Ec